Contact Us

Month: September 2025

BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

A guide to fencing disputes in Victoria

A root cause of many legal issues, is to do with money. In the case of dividing fences between adjoining land owners, the cost of erecting a dividing fence, or constructing a new dividing fence, is a frequent issue which arises. One adjoining owner may wish to erect a new fence, so as to increase their property value (for any number of reasons), while the other adjoining owner is not concerned with the value of their property (for example, they do not intend to sell), and thus, does not want the expense associated with the construction of a new fence: 2. Type, height, design, style of fence Even if the costs of the construction of a dividing fence is not in issue, the adjoining owners may not agree on the type of fence to be constructed, the materials to be used, its height or its colour. Some adjoining owners may want a modern fence made of colour bond at a standard height, whereas the other adjoining owner may want a more rustic look, made of old bricks or some other material. 3. History between neighbours A history of hostilities between adjoining owners (however those hostilities came about) can cause fencing disputes to arise. Likewise, fencing disputes can and do, cause prolonged hostilities between neighbours. 4. Boundary disagreements Another type of fencing dispute which does arise is where there is a disagreement as to where the common boundary between the adjoining properties actually is. The original fence which separated the adjoining properties is not necessarily a reliable indicator of where the boundary between the two adjoining properties actually is. Resolving a fencing dispute quickly and efficiently The Fences Act 1968 (Vic) provides a procedure for attempting to resolve fencing disputes amicably between two or more adjoining owners of land, and where that is not possible, how more formal legal action be commenced. The Fences Act 1968 (Vic) provides that fencing work cannot be undertake other than in accordance with: A guide to fencing disputes in Victoria Introduction People in Australia rather like their fences, and for good reason. They provide certainty as to where the boundary between their property rights start and where they end. In fact, we like our fences so much, we have long had legislation in place, specifically to deal with (and recognise), these commonly occurring types of disputes. Importance of a boundary fence Boundary fences are important for a variety of reasons: they provide neighbours with a degree of certainty as to where their property (and their associated rights) start and where they end; they provide a degree of security for the occupants; they provide a degree privacy to the occupants; and they provide safety to children and pets. Common fencing disputes Boundary fences in Australia are subject to a variety of common disputes, including, but not limited to: boundary issues: issues as to where the actual, real, boundary is (historically, where a fence was placed/built was not necessarily where it legally ought to have been). This is still a common dispute and can give rise to issues such as adverse possession claims. encroachment: this occurs where the boundary fence has been built into and upon an adjoining neighbour’s land, where it should not have been built. cost sharing: an old fence may be in a dilapidated state and require considerable renovation or replacement, this can cause issues between neighbours as to the design and cost of a new fence. use of the fence: sometimes a neighbour might use a fence for an unintended person, which the other neighbour may not consent to (for example, affixing things, objects or structures to it). This can cause damage, especially if the fence is not structurally designed for the additional load bearing. removal of the fence: sometimes a neighbour simply disregards the law and entirely removes the fence without obtaining appropriate court orders to do so. height and design issues: sharing the cost of the fence may not be an issue, rather, it may simply be a difference of opinion in height or design or some other aspect of the proposed fence. The law governing fencing disputes Most Australian States and Territories have specific legislation directly dealing with a majority of fencing disputes, and most are concerned with the concept of ‘sufficient fence’. Albeit, some legislation is more extensive than others. In Victoria, this is the Fences Act 1968 (Vic) and its regulations. An overview of the Fences Act 1968 (Vic) The operation and purposes of the Fences Act 1968 (Vic) is to provide a legislative framework governing the definition of a sufficient fence, the procedure for fencing works, the determination of common boundaries if they cannot be agreed, and the implementation of processes and procedures from which fencing disputes can efficiently and cheaply be resolved between neighbours of adjoining lands. When is a fence required? The Fences Act 1968 (Vic) does not mandate the requirement for a fence to exist between owners of adjoining land. That remains, as it always has, a matter between the owners of the adjoining land, although most owners will invariably seek to have a dividing fence for a variety of reasons, including the reasons discussed above. There is no type, design or manner in which the fence must comply under the Fences Act 1968 (Vic), other than it must meet the definition of a ‘sufficient dividing fence’. Where there is a minimum or maximum height, or other requirements within a local area, that is dealt with by the local government’s bylaws. Likewise, the fence cannot be made of materials which are otherwise illegal to use or possess (such as asbestos), and must comply with other laws, such as environmental or building laws. Definition of ‘sufficient dividing fence’ There is no strict definition of a sufficient dividing fence under the Fences Act 1968 (Vic), other than, when determining whether the fence, or the proposed fence, is sufficient, a number of matters must be taken into account, they include, without limitation, the following: the existing dividing

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

Is a cartoon picture of Jabba the Hutt defamatory?

Can a cartoon or a picture be defamatory? Can a cartoon character depicting Jabba the Hutt from Star Wars give rise to an action in defamation? Well, according to His Honour, Morzone DCJ in Hallam v O’Connor and Payne [2024] QDC 187, it most definitely can. As is common in the Australian defamation world, it involved: a plaintiff that was involved in the local government space, namely, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Local Government Association of Queensland; and a defendant who was a former politician. The plaintiff was Mr Greg Hallam, who sued Mr Rob Payne, the fourth defendant, and Ms Lyn O’Connor, the first defendant. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the first defendant who took no steps to set it aside and challenge liability. Accordingly, the question in respect of the first defendant was merely that of the assessment of damages. However, the fourth defendant, Mr Payne, denied liability, and accordingly, His Honour had to determine the question of liability. The publication in question for the purposes of this article is a publication by Mr Payne on Facebook on 21 June 2017 to the following effect – “Thanks to all people supporting a Queensland ICAC. Those in power rarely welcome scrutiny, but the ordinary decent people in government roles (who are often victims) need us to maintain the rage!”. Publication of the above Facebook post by Mr Payne was conceded. All that his Honour was required then, to establish was whether the Facebook post: was of and concerning Mr Hallam; and carried the defamatory imputations pleaded, or similar imputations not differing in substance. There was no requirement for His Honour to determine the issue of serious harm, as the defamatory publications occurred prior to the uniform defamation amendments which took effect on 1 July 2021 in Queensland. Was the Jabba the Hutt caricature post of and concerning the plaintiff? Mr Hallam’s case as to identification was a contextual one, based upon the existence of multiple extrinsic facts. This was because Mr Hallam’s name was not used in any of the five (5) publications Mr Hallam pleaded against Mr Payne. As such, express identification could not be established. Some of the extrinsic facts relied upon to establish that the Facebook post was of and concerning the Mr Hallam included, but were not limited to: Mr Hallam’s physical appearance; that the acronym LGAQ is known in the public domain as being a reference to the Local Government Association of Queensland; and the nature of Mr Payne’s Facebook page, in that, it promoted matters of politics, and thus, would attract a readership that have an interest in politics. His Honour found, in particular at [19] that the caricature of Jabba the Hutt was persuasive evidence of identification, and further reinforced an ordinary reasonable reader to identify the plaintiff by the use of the words “LGAQ” on its shirt. Additionally, Mr Hallam called three (3) witnesses who gave direct evidence that they recognised the Facebook post as being of and concerning him. Accordingly, His Honour found at [25]. That the Facebook post, and the other four (4) pleaded publications (being 2 to 5) did, on the balance of probabilities, identify Mr Hallam. The imputations Mr Hallam pleaded seven (7) imputations said to have arose out of the Facebook post. They were as follows: the plaintiff was a powerful crime boss; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff operated through the LGAQ as a cartel, a profitable criminal empire; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff was corrupt; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff sought to corruptly influence public officials including elected members of the Queensland Parliament; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff had overborne the ethical standards which the LGAQ should have provided to local government; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff as the CEO of the LGAQ, did not welcome appropriate scrutiny of himself or the LGAQ; and further and alternatively, the plaintiff as CEO of the LGAQ, contributed to ordinary decent people in government roles becoming victims by the misuse of power. His Honour found that: imputations (a) and (b) were not made out, as it would require an unreasonable interpretation, by the ordinary, reasonable reader, with knowledge of the Jabba the Hutt character, to reach that conclusion. imputations (c) and (d) were capable of being conveyed, and were conveyed, by the use of the words ‘ICAC’ within the Facebook post, being understood by the ordinary, reasonable reader as a reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption; and that the remaining imputations (e), (f) and (g) were made out for, amongst other reasons, the symbolism of the chain used in the caricature, the use of the words ‘victim’ and ‘those in power rarely welcome increased scrutiny’ (as applicable). Damages A good part of the judgment concerned the assessment of general, aggravated and special damages. His Honour assessed damages as against the fourth defendant as follows: General Damages:                               $100,000.00 Aggravated Damages:                       $25,000.00 Special Damages:                                 $3,798.00 Interest on General Damages:       $27,675.53 Interest on Special Damages:        $805.38 Total:                                                              $157,260.91 Got a question about defamation? Allen Law has significant experience in the law of defamation, and can provide you with a full suite of services, from initial, detailed written advice, to concerns notices and detailed responses if you’ve been served with a concerns notice. Even better yet, we will beat any price in accordance with our price beat guarantee policy. Get in touch today, to see how we can help. Phone:             (03) 7020 6563Email:               enquiries@allenlawyers.com.auWebsite:          www.allenlawyers.com.au Disclaimer: This article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Allen Law for

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

Misleading & Deceptive Conduct

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law Introduction In the world of commerce, trust is the glue that holds transactions together. Consumers must be able to rely on the truthfulness of claims made about goods and services that they are considering purchasing. Likewise, businesses must be confident that their competitors are playing fairly and not gaining an unfair advantage. When false, inaccurate, or incomplete representations creep into the marketplace, that trust begins to erode. Australian law takes this issue seriously. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), enshrines one of the most important consumer protection mechanisms in the country: the prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct. This prohibition sits at the heart of modern consumer law in Australia, and it has been described by courts as a “norm of conduct” that applies across the entire marketplace throughout Australia. At the centre of this protection lies an extremely important section: section 18 of the ACL. Section 18 prohibits anyone from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. The section is drafted in remarkably simple terms, yet its application has been extensive, far-reaching, and highly litigated. This article will explore: the scope and effect of section 18; what constitutes ‘conduct’ for the purposes of the ACL; the meaning of ‘misleading or deceptive’; the requirement of trade or commerce; common examples of contraventions; the line between puffery and conduct which is contrary to section 18; remedies and enforcement; practical guidance for businesses; and the interaction between section 18 and other laws. By the end of this article, you should have a clear understanding of how this central consumer law principle works, and why compliance is so critical for anyone engaging in trade or commerce in Australia. The statutory provision: Section 18 Section 18(1) of the ACL states, in plain language: A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Although the words are straightforward, they carry profound implications. no intention required – unlike fraud or deceit at common law, there is no need to prove that a person intended to mislead or deceive. The focus is on the effect of the conduct. no actual loss required – a contravention can occur even if no one has yet suffered damage. However, loss or damage is necessary if a party wants to seek compensation pursuant to section 236 of the ACL. wide scope – the provision applies to virtually all forms of trade or commerce, covering both consumer transactions and dealings between businesses. What constitutes ‘conduct’? The word “conduct” in section 18 is given a wide and flexible interpretation. It can include: spoken or written statements; online or print advertising; social media promotions; product packaging and labelling; omissions and failures to disclose; and even silence, in some circumstances. In Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (which considered the predecessor legislation, namely, section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) the Federal Court found that a vendor’s failure to disclose restrictions on restaurant seating capacity amounted to misleading conduct. The Court emphasised that silence can mislead if, in the circumstances, disclosure was expected. The breadth of ‘conduct’ ensures that businesses cannot escape liability by claiming that their statements were casual, informal, or non-verbal, or that they ‘forgot’ or omitted to inform a potential consumer by accident. The law looks to substance over form. What does ‘misleading or deceptive’ mean? Courts have deliberately avoided giving a rigid definition to these terms. Instead, the guiding principle is whether the conduct has a real and not remote chance of leading someone into error. In Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191, which again, considered section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) the High Court confirmed that the test is objective: would the conduct mislead or deceive a reasonable member of the relevant audience? A few key points emerge from the case law: objective standard – it is irrelevant whether the person who made the statement believed it to be true. target audience matters – the relevant audience depends on the context. Advertising directed at sophisticated investors will be judged differently from advertising aimed at everyday consumers. not every mistake qualifies – the law is concerned with conduct likely to mislead ordinary, reasonable members of the class, not the unusually gullible or careless. This flexible approach allows the law to adapt to changing circumstances and technologies. The requirement of ‘in trade or commerce’ Section 18 is limited to conduct ‘in trade or commerce.’ This means the conduct must occur in the context of commercial or business dealings. The High Court in Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson clarified that not every act by a business falls within the scope. In this particular case, a concrete worker, who, acting on instructions from his foreman, fell down an air-conditioning shaft, suffering serious injury. At first instance, the worker was successful. However, on appeal to the High Court, the High Court ruled that that the injuries were not sustained during the course of trade or commerce.Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal. However, most dealings between businesses and consumers, and many dealings between businesses themselves, will fall within the scope. Examples include: sale of goods or services; advertising and marketing; real estate transactions; financial services; franchise arrangements. The courts interpret ‘trade or commerce’ broadly, ensuring that most marketplace behaviour is captured. Common examples of misleading conduct Section 18 cases span industries from telecommunications to real estate, finance, retail, and beyond. Some common examples include: false product claims – e.g. claiming a product is ‘Made in Australia’ when it is not. price misrepresentations – e.g. advertising ‘sale’ prices where the product was never sold at the higher price. misleading advertising – e.g. fine print that contradicts the main message. false endorsements – using fake reviews or fabricated

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

Statutory Demands: A Guide

A Guide to Statutory Demands for both Creditors & Debtors in Australia A statutory demand is a formal, written notice issued by a creditor to a debtor (which must be a corporation), requiring immediate payment of an outstanding debt. Failure to comply within 21 days may result in the company being presumed insolvent open to being subject to a winding up application in the Federal Court or Supreme Court. A statutory demand is a powerful legal instrument under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and is often the first step in corporate debt enforcement and collection. This article explains the process and implications of statutory demands, both from the perspective of a creditor seeking to recover a debt, and a company that has been served with one. What is a statutory demand? Under section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001, a statutory demand is a formal demand issued by a creditor which compels the debtor company, which owes a debt (or debts) totalling more than $4,000.00 to, within the statutory period: pay the debt or debts, in full; enter into an arrangement acceptable to the creditor; or apply to the court to have the demand set aside. If the debtor company fails to take appropriate steps within the statutory period, the creditor can apply to wind the company up in insolvency pursuant to section 459Q of the Corporations Act 2001. Purpose of a Statutory Demand A statutory demand serves two primary functions: enforcement: It places legal pressure on the debtor to resolve or pay the debt. insolvency trigger: Non-compliance establishes a legal presumption of insolvency, forming the basis for a liquidation application. Statutory demands are not intended to resolve disputes. They are only appropriate where the debt is undisputed, due, and payable. Nevertheless, they remain an effective means of compelling payment. Requirements of a valid statutory demand To be effective, a statutory demand must strictly comply with the formal requirements of the Corporations Act 2001. Non-compliance can render the demand invalid and lead to adverse cost consequences for the creditor. Key statutory requirements (under s459E(2)): A statutory demand must: be in writing; be in the prescribed form; specify the debt or total amount owing (if more than one debt); require the debtor company to pay, secure, or compound the debt to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction; be signed by or on behalf of the creditor; and if the debt (or a part of the debt) is not a judgment debt, be accompanied by an affidavit verifying that the debt is due and payable. Errors in the form, or failure to provide a supporting affidavit, can invalidate the demand. Supporting Affidavit For debts that are not based on a court judgment, a statutory demand must be accompanied by a properly sworn affidavit confirming: the creditor’s belief that the debt is due and payable; the basis on which the debt is claimed; and must comply with the rules of court. Serving the statutory demand Service of the statutory demand must be executed in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001. Correct service is essential to enforceability. Common methods include: delivering the demand to the company’s registered office; or leaving it with a director or authorised officer. Service by post is permitted if addressed to the registered office. Courts regularly deal with challenges to statutory demands based on improper service, and even minor defects in service can be fatal to enforcement. Consequences of non-compliance If the debtor company fails to respond within 21 days of effective service, the following consequences may arise: a presumption of insolvency is triggered under section 459C(2)(a); the creditor may file an application for the company to be wound up in insolvency; the burden shifts to the debtor to rebut the presumption in court. It is not necessary to prove actual insolvency at this stage. The failure to comply with the statutory demand is, on its own, sufficient evidence of insolvency for the purpose of a winding up application. Grounds for setting aside a statutory demand If a company wishes to challenge a statutory demand, it must apply to the court within 21 days of service to have the demand set aside. The application must be supported by an affidavit outlining the reasons. Under section 459H, the court may set aside a statutory demand if: 1.     There is a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt The dispute must be bona fide and based on real grounds, not simply a denial of the debt. A genuine dispute does not require the company to prove it will succeed, only that there is a serious question to be tried. 2.     The company has an offsetting claim An offsetting claim arises where the debtor company has a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand against the creditor, whether liquidated or unliquidated, and whether or not the claim arises from the same transaction. 3.     There is a defect in the demand causing substantial injustice This may include errors in form, amounts, or inconsistent or unclear descriptions of the debt. 4.     There is some other reason the demand should be set aside Courts retain discretion to set aside a demand in circumstances of abuse of process, unconscionable conduct, or other equitable grounds. 5.     The “Substantiated Amount” If the court finds that part of the debt is in dispute or subject to an offsetting claim, it may assess what is called the substantiated amount – the undisputed portion of the debt. If the substantiated amount is below the statutory minimum ($4,000), the demand must be set aside. Timeframes are strict Strict compliance with time limits is essential. The application to set aside the demand must: be filed in the court within 21 days of service; and be served on the creditor promptly. Late applications will not be accepted, and the statutory presumption of insolvency will remain in place. Strategic considerations for creditors Creditors should carefully assess the circumstances before issuing a statutory demand. Key considerations include: whether the debt is genuinely undisputed

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

Can I refuse to be an Executor of a Will?

Can I refuse to be an executor under a will? Being named as the executor of a loved one’s Will can sometimes come as a surprise. For many people, the news arrives during an already difficult time, following the death of someone close to them. While some view the role of executor as an honour, others may see it as an overwhelming burden. So, what happens if you do not want to act as executor? Do you have a choice? What are your legal options? In this article, we explain what it means to be named an executor of a Will, when and how you can refuse the role, and the legal consequences of your decision. What Is an executor of a will? An executor is the person appointed in a Will to carry out the deceased’s final wishes and administer their estate. This is a role of trust and responsibility. Executors are responsible for tasks such as: locating the original Will; arranging the funeral and burial or cremation; applying for a grant of probate (formal approval of the Will by the relevant Supreme Court in your State or Territory); identifying and securing the deceased’s assets; paying debts and taxes owed by the estate; distributing the estate to the beneficiaries according to the terms of the Will. It is not unusual for people to nominate family members, close friends, or professional advisers as executors. However, being named does not mean you are compelled to accept the role. Do I have to accept being an executor? The simple answer is no. A person named as executor has the freedom to accept or decline the role, unless they have already taken steps that amount to “intermeddling” in the estate (explained below). Declining the role is referred to as renouncing probate. This means you are formally refusing the responsibility of administering the estate. Importantly, even if you told the deceased during their lifetime that you would act as executor, you are not legally bound to follow through if you change your mind after their death. Why might someone refuse to be an executor? There are many reasons why a named executor may not want to accept the appointment, including: emotional reasons – the grief of losing a loved one can make the thought of handling their affairs too distressing. personal circumstances – you may have too many commitments, health concerns, or live overseas, making the role impractical. financial considerations – if you are not receiving any benefit from the estate, you may not wish to shoulder the burden of administration. family dynamics – disputes or tension among beneficiaries may make the task of executor particularly challenging. It may simply be better to allow another person to act as executor, reducing the likelihood of disputes. Whatever the reason, the law recognises that not everyone is in a position to take on this responsibility. How do I refuse to be an executor? If you decide not to act, you must formally renounce probate. This involves: signing a renunciation of probate document, which must be in the proper form; filing the renunciation with the Supreme Court of your State or Territory; having the renunciation accepted by the Court. The renunciation does not take effect until the Court has accepted it and must usually be accompanied by an affidavit of verification, to be completed by a lawyer. It is strongly recommended that you obtain legal advice before renouncing. A solicitor can explain the process, prepare the necessary affidavit, and ensure your documents meet the Court’s requirements. What Is intermeddling? You can only refuse to act as executor if you have not already “intermeddled” in the estate. Intermeddling refers to conduct that shows you have accepted the role of executor, such as dealing with the estate’s property or finances. Examples of intermeddling may include: closing or accessing the deceased’s bank accounts; selling, transferring, or managing estate assets; paying debts or liabilities of the estate; representing yourself to others as the executor. Once you have intermeddled, you usually cannot later renounce your appointment. Acts that usually do not amount to intermeddling include: arranging and paying for the funeral (including from estate funds); securing the deceased’s property from damage or theft; caring for pets or livestock; advertising or applying for a grant of probate without taking further steps. The distinction can be subtle. If you are unsure whether something you have done amounts to intermeddling, it is important to seek legal advice promptly. What happens If I do nothing? Some executors neither renounce their role nor take any steps to administer the estate. This can create significant delays and stress for beneficiaries. If this happens, any person with an interest in the estate may apply to the Court under section 15 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). The Court can order you to: bring the Will before the Court; explain why you are not proving the Will or renouncing; allow the Court to appoint someone else to administer the estate. If such an application is necessary, you may be ordered to pay the legal costs of the proceedings. Consequences of renouncing While renouncing can relieve you of responsibility, it may also have consequences that you should consider carefully. These may include: loss of entitlements under the Will – in some cases, your entitlement as a beneficiary may be conditional on you acting as executor, even if this is not stated explicitly. loss of executor’s commission – executors can apply for commission as compensation for the time and effort involved in administering the estate. By renouncing, you give up this potential entitlement. Every situation is different. The impact of renouncing depends on the terms of the Will and the overall structure of the estate. Should I get legal advice before renouncing? Absolutely. Deciding whether to accept or refuse an executor appointment can have long-term consequences for you and the estate. A solicitor can: explain your rights and obligations as executor; advise whether your actions so far amount to

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

General protection claims

General Protections Claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): What You Need to Know The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) provides employees across Australia with a broad range of workplace protections. Among these, the General Protections provisions are some of the most powerful. They protect employees and prospective employees from adverse action, coercion, misrepresentation, and undue influence or pressure. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, General Protections matters do not require minimum employment periods or salary thresholds. As such, they are a valuable legal avenue for workers who believe their rights have been breached—especially where discrimination, retaliation, or coercion is alleged. This article explains what General Protections are, what types of claims may be brought, the legal framework for adverse action, and the process for resolving disputes. It focuses on the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission and Federal Courts, and provides guidance on remedies and enforcement. What are general protections? The General Protections provisions, found in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act, aim to: Protect workplace rights; Ensure freedom of association; Provide protection against workplace discrimination; Promote fairness in the workplace. These protections apply not only to employees, but also to prospective employees, contractors, industrial associations, and union members. The provisions create obligations that employers must not breach, regardless of the size or nature of the business. Key Protections Under the Act The General Protections regime encompasses several distinct legal protections. 1. Workplace Rights A person has a workplace right if they are: entitled to a benefit or role under a workplace law, award, agreement or order; able to initiate or participate in a process or proceeding under a workplace law; able to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to their employment. It is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against a person because they have (or exercise or propose to exercise) a workplace right. 2. Freedom of Association This refers to the right of individuals to: choose whether or not to join a union; be represented in the workplace; participate in lawful industrial activities. Employers must not take adverse action because an employee participates in (or refuses to participate in) union-related activity. 3. Protection from Discrimination General Protections prohibit adverse action based on protected attributes, including: race; sex; age; disability; religion; political opinion; national origin; family or carer responsibilities. Discriminatory treatment on these grounds may give rise to both a General Protections claim and a claim under anti-discrimination legislation. What Is Adverse Action? Understanding the meaning of adverse action is crucial. Under section 342 of the FW Act, adverse action includes: dismissing an employee; altering the position of the employee to their prejudice; injuring the employee in their employment; discriminating between employees; Critically, it is not necessary to prove that the adverse action was the sole reason for the conduct. It need only be one of the reasons, even if it is not the dominant or primary one. This threshold, coupled with a reverse onus of proof, makes general protections claims more favourable to applicants compared to other employment claims. Reverse onus of proof One of the most significant features of the General Protections regime is the reverse onus under section 361 of the Act. Once an applicant establishes that adverse action occurred and alleges a prohibited reason, it is presumed that the adverse action was taken for that reason – unless the employer proves otherwise. The employer must lead clear and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption. If they fail to do so, the court will likely find that the prohibited reason was the sole, or a, motivating factor, and therefore find in favour of the applicant. Examples of General Protections Breaches Termination after safety complaint An employee who raises concerns about workplace safety and is later dismissed may have a claim for adverse action if the dismissal is connected to the complaint. Retaliation for taking personal leave An employee who exercises their entitlement to personal leave and is demoted, terminated or disadvantaged may pursue a general protections claim. Refusal to hire due to union affiliation A prospective employee denied employment because of their union membership may be able to establish unlawful adverse action. How to make a general protections claim The process for making a general protections claim depends on whether or not the alleged adverse action involves dismissal. 1. Claims involving dismissal Where adverse action results in termination of employment, the applicant must: lodge an applicant with the Fair Work Commission; do so within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect. The Commission will then convene a conciliation conference, usually conducted by telephone, to attempt to resolve the matter. If no resolution is reached, the applicant may request a certificate allowing the matter to proceed to the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. 2. Claims not involving dismissal For adverse action claims that do not involve dismissal, the applicant may apply directly to the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court, without the need to first approach the Commission. However, legal advice is strongly recommended in such cases, as court proceedings can be complex and costly. Remedies available Successful general protections claims can result in a broad range of remedies. These include: reinstatement (in cases of dismissal); compensation for economic loss, hurt, or humiliation; civil penalties against the employer and any individuals involved in the contravention; injunctions to prevent ongoing or future contraventions. There is no cap on compensation, unlike unfair dismissal claims, where compensation is generally capped at 26 weeks’ pay. This makes General Protections claims particularly powerful where there is evidence of financial harm or emotional distress. Case Law: Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32 This High Court decision remains one of the leading authorities on general protections. Mr Barclay, a union representative, sent an email raising concerns about workplace conduct. He was suspended and later dismissed. The employer argued the dismissal was due to misconduct, not his union involvement. The High

Read More
BY: root
29 October, 2025 Comments (0)

A Victorian Guide to Residential Tenancy Law & Disputes

A Guide to Residential Tenancy Law & Disputes in Victoria In Victoria, residential tenancy disputes are common occurrences between landlords and tenants. Whether it involves unpaid rent, property damage, bond disputes or lease termination issues, these conflicts often require resolution through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Understanding the types of disputes that arise, and how VCAT manages them, is essential for both property owners and tenants. This article explains the nature of residential tenancy disputes in Victoria, outlines common types of conflicts, and sets out the procedure for resolving such disputes through VCAT. What Is a residential tenancy dispute? A residential tenancy dispute is a legal disagreement between a landlord (rental provider) and a tenant (renter) arising from a residential tenancy agreement. These disputes may involve breaches of the rental agreement, issues of maintenance and repairs, disagreements over rent or bond, or concerns about access, privacy, and termination. In Victoria, such disputes fall under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic), which outlines the rights and responsibilities of parties to a residential lease. When informal negotiations fail, parties may escalate the matter to VCAT – the body responsible for hearing and resolving tenancy disputes in a timely, low-cost and accessible manner. Common Types of Residential Tenancy Disputes Although rental disputes vary, certain categories arise frequently across Victoria. Below are the most common types of disputes heard at VCAT. 1.     Bond Disputes Bond disputes are among the most frequent issues. Typically, a dispute arises when: The landlord claims part or all of the bond for damages, cleaning or unpaid rent The tenant contests the deduction, asserting the property was left in a reasonable condition, or that rent has been paid up to date, etc. It is important to note that bonds must be lodged with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (RTBA). After the tenancy ends, either party may apply to have the bond released. If there is no agreement, the dispute may proceed to VCAT. 2.     Rent Arrears Disputes concerning unpaid rent often lead to notices to vacate and eviction proceedings. A landlord may serve a Notice to Vacate if the tenant falls behind on rent for 14 days or more. If the rent remains unpaid, the landlord can apply to VCAT for possession of the property. However, if tenants pay within the notice period, no application can be made (until a certain number of notices have been issued). Further, the tenant can apply for a payment plan or negotiate alternative arrangements. VCAT must balance the rights of both parties and will usually consider hardship before ordering possession. 3.     Property Damage Allegations of damage beyond reasonable wear and tear frequently lead to conflict. Landlords may claim compensation for: Stains, broken fittings, or structural damage Failure to maintain cleanliness or sanitation On the other hand, tenants often argue that the damage was pre-existing or resulted from fair wear and tear. Supporting evidence, such as entry and exit condition reports, becomes critical in such disputes. 4.     Repairs and Maintenance Tenants have a legal right to live in a property that is in good repair and reasonably clean. Landlords must address urgent repairs without delay and non-urgent repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Disputes arise when: Landlords fail to undertake repairs Tenants carry out unauthorised repairs and seek reimbursement There is disagreement about whether a repair is urgent or non-urgent VCAT may order repairs, reimbursement or compensation depending on the circumstances. 5.     Entry and Privacy Under Victorian law, landlords must provide proper notice before entering the premises. Tenants may dispute: Unlawful or excessive entry Entry without notice Lack of respect for quiet enjoyment Landlords may enter only under specific conditions, such as inspections, repairs, or emergencies, and must provide at least 24 hours’ written notice in most cases. 6.     Lease Termination and Evictions Lease terminations often generate disputes, particularly when one party alleges breach of the agreement. These issues commonly include: Early termination by tenants Non-payment of rent Landlord seeking possession during a fixed-term lease VCAT hears applications regarding the validity of notices to vacate, whether reasonable grounds exist for termination, and whether hardship would result from eviction. 7. Rent Increases Disputes may occur when: Tenants believe a rent increase is excessive or unjustified Proper notice was not given (minimum 60 days) Increases occur more frequently than permitted (once every 12 months for periodic agreements) VCAT can assess whether the new rent is excessive based on market comparisons. Attempting Resolution Before VCAT Before applying to VCAT, parties are encouraged to resolve disputes through informal negotiation. In many cases, disputes can be settled by: Communicating in writing Using the services of Consumer Affairs Victoria Engaging in voluntary conciliation Consumer Affairs Victoria offers dispute resolution assistance and may help parties reach agreement without needing a tribunal hearing. While not mandatory in all cases, attempting resolution before escalating the matter can save time, stress and costs. The VCAT Process for Tenancy Disputes When disputes cannot be resolved informally, parties may apply to VCAT’s Residential Tenancies List. The process is designed to be accessible, even without legal representation. 1. Filing an Application The first step is to complete and lodge a VCAT application form, which can be done online or in person. The application must: Clearly state the nature of the dispute Identify the orders sought Include relevant supporting documents (e.g. lease agreement, notices, condition reports) There is usually a filing fee, although fee relief may be available for eligible applicants. 2. Notifying the Other Party VCAT requires that the other party (the respondent) be properly notified of the application. In most cases, this involves serving the application via post or email. Proof of service must be provided. The respondent may file a response or attend the hearing to present their side. Failure to attend may result in orders being made in their absence. 3. Attending the Hearing VCAT hearings are conducted in an informal setting. The parties are usually not required to have legal representation, although they may engage a

Read More

Litigate. Dominate. Obliterate.

Services

GET IN TOUCH

    HEADQUARTERS

    Level 11 | 456 Lonsdale Street
    Melbourne | Victoria 3000

    Phone

    (03) 7020 6563

    Email

    enquiries@allenlawyers.com.au

    Facebook Linkedin Instagram Whatsapp

    ようこそ